...every deck could be made and printed any size the author wanted it to be without loosing any geometrical information.
Like I said it's all about means and proportions - and absolute measurements (as suggested by EUGIM and his participants in the linked thread a page back) won't get anyone anywhere.

Since I'm occupied the next days and can unfortunately not be with you here on the look-out for things to come I wanted to let you know that I think about you a lot and so just did edit the 2nd post on the 1st page with a heartfelt present for you.

("Have a look!" could have been more appropriate but it doesn't sound that cool - or does it? And I know around here it's all about fashion and style and supposed pedigree... )

I come bearing glad tidings!
Even in the aftermath of X-Mess I don't hesitate to ride the dragon to provide for your convalescence from card games (although when still under the influence... ) you shall see!

Some of you dear readers may have seen this coming - but I couldn't let The LADDER go without some last precise depiction of Her Being.
You can thank me later for that - no need now.

The new year approaches and you shall enter relieved - my word on it!

Yes - I know those things are nagging you: precision - geometry - were did the diamond pattern come from? Why did they use it for 500 years without us knowing nothing about it? How could that happen with all those experts and adepts and masters around?

And I did soothe a good deal of those nagging thoughts - didn't I?
Now say: "Yes". Please.
Thank you. You're welcome.

But The PRECISION of The LADDER was not accounted for - yet.
This shall end now - once and for all

In addition I intend to do a practical observational remark in days to come about the DIMENSIONS of the ORIGINAL PMB Visconti-Sforza Tarot cards (the artfully one-of-a kind hand-crafted cards - yes) that should convince even the weakest of minds out there in the Tarot-Jungle that those were NOT meant to be played with on a table in the accustomed nowadays manner.

But I'll give you a hint in advance so that you mustn't feel too ashamed that you did not think about this yourself
When you look at a stacked pack of 78 cards in a clean block - what would you measure?

The hight or length of the pack. Yes.
The width or broadness of a pack? Yes - very good.

And... ... Come on!

The "thickness" - for lack of a better word in your language would be a good decision measurement wise.

Now try that sometimes (in your MIND only of course) with those hand-crafted treasures and I promise that you are in for a BIG surprise!

I'll add it here because I believe it backs up a lot of my assertions here about the purpose of the Visconti-Sforza Tarot „cards“ hung up on a wall to serve NOT as PLAYING CARDS and because you read but don't talk much I'll get you the chance to catch up without wasting time with searching for lesser stuff.

So have fun while you make up your mind

Hell again dear readers.

Some time ago I announced that I would publish Mr. William M. Voelkle's answer to the inquiry a friend whose name is withheld here by request made on my behalf about the measurements and weight of the remaining Visconti-Sforza Tarot „cards“ (PMB) in his care at The Morgan Library & Museum as Senior Research Curator of the Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts Collection.

The original letter you'll find at the first page here in the first post:

I didn't do that so far because after his answer that you will find below I had several more detailed questions about the specifics of the measurements and other issues that I mailed to him – but he did not reply further to my amazed disappointment – so I (and you maybe... ) have to deal with what I (we) have got here.

It is still enough to confirm my assertion that the PMB (and all the other BIG HAND MADE depictions on cardboard from the Visconti-Sforza family with the Kilim-Pattern in the background of the „personas“ that were taken so far by all „experts“ (including Mr. Voelkle) to be PLAYING CARDS were NONE – AND were never meant to BE:

Re: Visconti-Sforza Tarot Cards

19.01.2016

Dear [name withheld by request],

First, I should say that our deck originally contained 78 cards, of which 74 are preserved, divided among the Morgan Library (35 cards), the Accademia Carrara in Bergamo (26 cards) and the Colleoni family (13 cards).

I was intrigued by your request to learn the thickness and weight of the cards, but for another reasons, to see if there were differences between the original cards and the replacement cards - as proved to be the case. as I was eager to see if there was a difference The cards were all 173 x 87 mm, and the weight and thickness of the original cards, be they picture cards or number cards, was fairly consistent. The thickness of the Hanged Man and the Queen of Swords, on laminated stock, was about 1.5 mm and the weight, in grams of the former was 14.78, and the latter, 14.84.

The replacement cards were on solid stock, and Temperance and Fortitude, for example, were less than 1 mm thick, and weighed weighed 11.94 grams and 12.53 grams respectively.

It is very telling that he (and neither did ANYONE: not Mr. Kaplan – nor Ross Caldwell or Huck – to name just a few accepted experts on this matter of the PMB... ) did NOT care about these defining measurements of CARDS in the 1st place BEFORE taking the PMB (and the others in that category) for PLAYING cards.

Mr. Voelkle states that:

... I should say that our deck originally contained 78 cards, of which 74 are preserved, ...

So there were originally 78 rectangular pieces of artfully gilded and painted cardboard that resembled a deck of cards by looks BUT with hole(s) in everyone of them to be hung (on a wall) and were IMPOSSIBLE to be PLAYED with (just like cards) just because of their measurements:

(Because of the pure GOLD that was part of the LAYERED construction [laminated stock [sic!]] of all 78 rectangles and which was about ½ mm thick)

173 x 87 mm > rectangular measurements of all 78 tableaus

From the „thickness“ of 4,6063 inches of the supposed whole pack alone it should be clear that only a giant like the „Fortitude“ guy could have managed to shuffle them – even IF they had been made of unpainted cardboard only (which they are of course not – and so: much to fragile!!).

To give you a comparison:

The DAL NEGRO replica of the PMB is very close to it's original measurements with 178 x 92 mm
BUT only 25 mm thick with all it's 78 cards.

So to reach the 117 mm of the original PMB you would have to stack more than 4 and ½ packs of the DAL NEGRO replica deck on top of each-other.

Those who own the Dal Negro will shake their heads now about the impossibility to manage such a pack.

Now: Why did Mr. Kaplan report that he estimated the whole pack of the PMB would be „about the height of 2 normal packs of cigarettes“ (from memory only) - what is about half of the correct thickness - when measuring 1 „card“ alone would have told him otherwise?

Because his whole fame and reputation is based on the FALSE (falsified) assumption that the VISCONTI-SFORZA TAROT „CARDS“ were PLAYING CARDS and so ROOT for a GAME that he now could feed to the masses in countless variations without any historical reason.

Once he told his assumption in his publication NO one ever would look again – what is really a shame for the Senior Research Curator of the Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts Collection at The Morgan Library & Museum I believe.

Now back to Mr. Voelkles reply and my evaluation of it:

You all know that the PMB is not made by one hand.
6 rectangles are known as „replacement cards“ from a 30 – 40 years later and Mr. Voelkle refers to them by that name what irritated me at first because I didn't refer to them by that notion.

Those 6 have a completely different make-up!

The replacement cards were on solid stock, and Temperance and Fortitude, for example, were less than 1 mm thick, and weighed weighed 11.94 grams and 12.53 grams respectively.

The difference in thickness and weight should be on part of the MISSING solid GOLD (and here you were RIGHT HUCK with your assumption!!) which was replaced with gold-LEAF.

Now: What does this tell (us?) me?

When the rectangles were under what shuffling methods ever an alchemist or a giant could have applied to them to make them fit for a game of cards at a table without breaking or spoiling or bending them...

… anyone at the table would have known WHERE those special 6 would be.

It is customary that ALL cards should be of the same make-up naturally in a fair game to offer no space for possible cheating – aristocracy gamble(s/d) often for money and riches like houses or horses and such other riches as a last retreat for excitement.

Money for the missing gold should have not been a problem and could have been made up for resemblance with other material like lead and thicker cardboard.
So it was all about LOOKS from a distance - from let's say 3 meters or yards perhaps where all those differences would become insignificant.

There the OP is just up with some fundamental links – for example a conversion from the scribd PDF by „C“ into 270 JPGs on Dropbox because scribd got less readable in the last year for non-members there.
The original file is still up there – but now you can have a more comfortable look page by page.

I often mentioned the OUROBOROS and his significance for the Tarot and it's formation.
The Goldschimidt cards (if you remember?) depict him just in the correct position and his lore is portrayed in lively movement through them to create the EGG that I hinted at in some comments.

„C“ did present that already - but of course in a shortened version because (I assume) when someone is so close with any subject that it becomes difficult to explain a personal very familiar process to a person NOT familiar with the same matter.

Many details blur into one frame and may get lost for the newcomer and the process is not understood to it's complete content – so I tried to make up for that because I experienced myself months of reflecting on what he might have meant with some phrases and pictures.